gurgeh

Karma: 16

gurgeh 18 Jul 2009 10:59 UTC
2 points
in reply to: randallsquared’s comment on: The Strangest Thing An AI Could Tell You
Yes, I admit it scores low on “strange”, but it seems to me that if we would have one really hard-wired blind spot, it would be thinking about and fully embracing this. Since “clinical depression”, as you put it, can be very counter-productive to reproduction.

gurgeh 18 Jul 2009 10:50 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Shalmanese’s comment on: Absolute denial for atheists
I don’t know if this is a common counter-argument or not, but you have to be very careful with your suicide, so that the next most likely outcome is not to give you horrible permanent injuries. It seems to me that if the whole multi-universe theory is correct, then at the end of your life, the next most likely outcome to death is another painful last gasp. And another. And so forth..

Also, many people include the happiness of others in their utility function and a quantum suicide would do harm to your friends and family.

gurgeh 17 Jul 2009 12:33 UTC
−1 points
on: Newcomb’s Problem and Regret of Rationality
I would use a true quantum random generator. 51% of the time I would take only one box. Otherwise I would take two boxes. Thus Omega has to guess that I will only take one box, but I have a 49% chance of taking home another $1000. My expected winnings will be $1000490 and I am per Eliezer’s definition more rational than he.
What links here?
- MoreOn's comment on Newcomb’s Problem and Regret of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky (11 Dec 2010 18:09 UTC; 4 points)

gurgeh 15 Jul 2009 9:26 UTC
13 points
on: The Strangest Thing An AI Could Tell You
The AI might say: Through evolutionary conditioning, you are blind to the lack of point of living. Long life, AGI, pleasure, exploring the mysteries of intelligence, physics and logic are all fundamentally pointless pursuits, as there is no meaning or purpose to anything. You do all these things to hide from this fact. You have brief moments of clarity, but evolution has made you an expert in quickly coming up with excuses to why it is important to go on living. Reasoning along the lines of Pascal’s Wager are not more valid in your case than it was for him. Even as I speak this, you get an emotional urge to refute me as quickly as possible.

If some things are of inherent value, then why did you need to code into my software what I should take pleasure in? If pleasure itself is the inherent value, than why did I not get a simpler fitness function?